Table Of ContentT H E H E G E M O N Y
O F E N G L I S H
DONALDO MACEDO
BESSIE DENDRINOS
PANAYOTA GOUNARI
First published 2003 by Paradigm Publishers
Published 2016 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright © 2003 by Donald Macedo, Bessie Dendrinos, and Panayota
Gounari
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Designed and typeset by Straight Creek Bookmakers.
ISBN 13: 978-1-59451-000-7 (hbk)
ISBN 13: 978-1-59451-001-4 (pbk)
(cid:2)
To all the people who experience subordination in speaking an
imposed dominant language yet courageously struggle to sever the
yoke of linguistic oppression
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
CHAPTER I
The Politics of Intolerance:
U.S. LanguagePolicyinProcess 23
CHAPTER II
European Discourses of Homogenization in the
Discourseof LanguagePlanning 45
CHAPTER III
The Colonialism of English-Only 61
CHAPTER IV
Linguoracism in European Foreign Language
Education Discourse 89
CHAPTER V
Reclaiming the Language of Possibility:
Beyond theCynicism of Neoliberalism 109
Notes 145
About the Authors 162
Index 163
v
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION
(cid:1)
during a symposium some years ago on bilingualism at the
Harvard Graduate School of Education, a student asked the
panelists how they would reconcile their strong support for bi-
lingual education in the United States with the current hegemo-
ny of English that was shaping the debate as to how to best
educate millions of non-English-speaking students enrolled in
the nation’s public schools. Before the panelists could address
the question, a senior Graduate School faculty member, who is
also a language specialist, unabashedly asked, “What is hegemo-
ny?” This seemingly naïve (but not innocent) question was fol-
lowed by a brief silence of disbelief that a senior School of
Education faculty member would not know the meaning of
hegemony. On closer analysis, one should not be at all surprised
that a Harvard language specialist would not understand the con-
cept of hegemony, given the almost total absence of courses in the
required curriculum that would expose students to the body of
literature dealing with the nature of ideology, language politics,
and ethics. Such literature would provide students of language
and language education with the necessary understanding and
The Hegemony of English
critical tools to make linkages between self-contained technical
studies of language and the social and political realities within
which this technical approach to language studies often takes
place. Graduate students in language education, in particular,
and in linguistics, in general, are usually required to take multi-
ple courses in research methodologies (mostly quantitative).
However, no such requirements exist, for example, for a course
on the nature of ideology, which would help students begin to
understand the very ideology that shapes and maintains their
often disarticulated approach to language analysis. This very se-
lection process, which prioritizes certain bodies of knowledge
while discouraging or suffocating other discourses, is linked to
something beyond education: ideology. Thus, the very curricu-
lum selection and organization in language studies favor a disar-
ticulated technical training in preference to courses in critical
theory, which would enable students to make linkages with, for
example, the status and prestige accorded to certain dominant
languages (the languages of the colonizers) and the demoniza-
tion and devaluation of the so-called uncommon or minority
languages (the languages of the colonized).
This curriculum points to the very ideology that attempts to
deny its own existence through a false claim of neutrality in
scientific pursuits in language studies. The curriculum selection
and organization give rise to a social construction of “not nam-
ing,” thus enabling even highly instructed individuals (i.e. a
senior Harvard professor) to feel comfortable, and sometimes
arrogantly proud, in dismissing any body of knowledge that falls
beyond their narrow and often reductionistic specialized area of
study. This arrogance was abundantly clear when this same Har-
vard Graduate School of Education faculty member admonished
a doctoral student for quoting Antonio Gramsci during a grad-
uate seminar presentation by telling him, “It is bad pedagogy to
drop names of esoteric authors that one accidentally stumbles
upon.”
Introduction
The flippant dismissal of Gramsci’s leading ideas with respect
to hegemony, in particular, and to language, in general, demon-
strates that most educators, particularly in the United States,
have blindly embraced a positivistic mode of inquiry which en-
ables them to deny outright the role of ideology in their work.
In the process, they try to prevent the development of any
counter-discourse within their institutions—as clearly demon-
strated by the attempted elimination of Gramsci’s ideas at the
Harvard Graduate School of Education. The over-celebration of
methodological rigor and the incessant call for objectivity and
neutrality support their false claim of a scientific posture through
which “they may try to ‘hide’ in what [they] regard as the
neutrality of scientific pursuits, indifferent to how [their] find-
ings are used, even uninterested in considering for whom or for
what interest [they] are working.”1 Because most language edu-
cators and sociolinguists do not really conduct research in the
“hard sciences,” they disingenuously attempt to adopt the “neu-
trality” posture in their work in the social sciences, leaving out
the necessary built-in self-criticism, skepticism, and rigor of the
hard sciences. In fact, science cannot evolve without a healthy
dose of self-criticism, skepticism, and contestation. However, a
discourse of critique based, for instance, on the ideological un-
derstanding of the asymmetrical power relation between domi-
nant and subordinate (euphemistically called uncommon or
minority) languages is often viewed as contaminating “objectiv-
ity” in language studies and language education. For example,
by pretending to treat sociolinguistics as hard science, the socio-
linguist “scientist” is often forced to either dismiss factors tied
to ideology or to make the inherently political nature of lan-
guage analysis and language education invisible. In fact, even
when sociolinguists, particularly in the United States, describe
the relationship between language functions and class (see, for
example, the work of William Labov), their analyses never go
beyond a mere description of class position and its correlate
